I think your questions are mute, but that being said I think the concept of this board (hat tip to GMT) is pure genius. This site gets a good many theists, from all sorts of backgrounds, through here. The Dawkins boards receive less theists then we do and as such I think the debate idea would do -so- much better here (and it does well there)

Logged

I will stop to contribute in this thread until some one shows up and seem to have brain. -- Master

It's a shame how you put your trust in theories that keep on changing. Bible has stayed the same for thousands of years [. . .] -- Skylark889

Is the topic about one or more generic 'deities' or a specific single deity such as Yahweh?

The debate notes specify a deity which has a human-like consciousness. I'm sure Majesty will work in terms of Yahweh, and that's fine.

Some of the reasons I framed the debate in just this way are:

1) It's potentially "winable," where a "proof of god" debate is less so. Of course, I think it's very winable by my side.2) There are no pre-canned arguments for Majesty to access on this topic.3) It's really a subset of a cosmological argument (approximately). Although, in one respect, it makes a higher hurdle for Majesty: he must show that ONLY a god COULD create existence--which is a higher task than showing that god is a reasonable or probable or "best" candidate for creator of the universe.4) By making the question very specific I hope to avoid the need for multi-page posts. It seems to me that I can defend most arguments in a few sentences.5) Majesty MIGHT admit to even a "tie" on this debate. If he does, he's admitting (at least by implication) that ideas other than god for the formation of the universe are valid. It's not so easy to go from there toward "proving" god made the universe.6) It CLEARLY puts the burden on Majesty, in a way I think even he can't challenge or avoid.

GetMeThere, I'm concerned with flip-flop debates where the specific deities/deity is swapped for another specific one or one that is more generic -- and then back again. It could cause needless thrashing during the debate as gods tend to be fuzzy even when specifically named and some effort is given to narrow the scope of what the deities/deity actually is.[1]

If Majesty is only interested in Yahweh, then Majesty should demand that the specific deity Yahweh be used and not an amorphous 'anything goes' deities/deity superset.

I'm not particularly prepared to defend against any particular god, i.e., I don't intend making a biblical argument NOR am I prepared to make a cosmological argument, really. If Majesty can show a singularity can come into existence ONLY by the direction of a "mind," any mind, then I'm prepared to acknowledge defeat.

Again, I want this debate to be SIMPLE and FOCUSED so that a conclusion can be reached that both sides can agree to.

Majesty has notified me by PM that he declines this debate. He said that he is in the process of learning "all the arguments" to prove god, but at the moment he is still perfecting the Kalam. He thinks that he might need "all the arguments" to debate the topic I propose, so for now he declines--although he might accept "soon."

For now, he offers to debate me, or any others, on the Kalam argument.

That's strange. I thought that Majesty (by his own promotion) was supposed to be some kind of colossus. Crushing the puny heathens with his shattering blows.

I don't have to 'learn the arguments' to be capable of having a debate. Yes, it's important to know what other people have thought, but I have my own ideas. Why would I depend on the arguments of other people for how I express myself? It's like asking for the canvas to be printed with lines and numbers for colors to be added.

1. This is not specific to a specific deity or set of deities, but to the superset of all deities.

2. Many people argue that a god is not a thing, an entity, or even a being. Pick one or some other type of ... whatever ... and hang a general description of the deity or deities being discussed on that.

* Specifically, in what way(s) does the category of the deity/deities being discussed differ from the general category?

* Specifically, in what way(s) does the deity/deities being discussed exist?

1. A rock exists as a largely stable block of matter that can usually be broken into pieces in a rock crusher. A house cat exists as a mammal, a living thing, a thing with behaviors and preferences, eats food, can usually hunt, is capable in the right conditions of making more cats, and as material that can like the rock be broken into pieces in a rock crusher. A rock, though, can not exist in many of the ways a cat can. Along those lines, in what ways does the deity/deities being discussed exist? Be specific. Be detailed.

Logged

Smart people believe weird things because they are skilled at defending beliefs they arrived at for non-smart reasons. --Michael Shermer

The history of religion is a long attempt to reconcile old custom with new reason, to find a sound theory for an absurd practice. --Sir James George Frazer

I don't have to 'learn the arguments' to be capable of having a debate. Yes, it's important to know what other people have thought, but I have my own ideas. Why would I depend on the arguments of other people for how I express myself? It's like asking for the canvas to be printed with lines and numbers for colors to be added.

Exactly. I wanted to point this out on the other commentary thread. He perceives his opinion as fire proof mostly because he read it somewhere and it made sense to him. Had he actually come to his opinions on his own, he'd understand the arguments presented against him and be able to explain how it all makes sense to him. But he is not capable of doing this, because he's basing his argument on other people's conclusions.

Logged

I is back.

I'm a muslim.No I won't email you a bomb if you tick me off, but only because I don't know how to.

Exactly. I wanted to point this out on the other commentary thread. He perceives his opinion as fire proof mostly because he read it somewhere and it made sense to him. Had he actually come to his opinions on his own, he'd understand the arguments presented against him and be able to explain how it all makes sense to him. But he is not capable of doing this, because he's basing his argument on other people's conclusions.

Good point. He's following an authority ... that follows an authority ... that follows an imaginary authority. Submission, not self-reliance.

Logged

Smart people believe weird things because they are skilled at defending beliefs they arrived at for non-smart reasons. --Michael Shermer

The history of religion is a long attempt to reconcile old custom with new reason, to find a sound theory for an absurd practice. --Sir James George Frazer

Majesty has notified me by PM that he declines this debate. He said that he is in the process of learning "all the arguments" to prove god, but at the moment he is still perfecting the Kalam. He thinks that he might need "all the arguments" to debate the topic I propose, so for now he declines--although he might accept "soon."

For now, he offers to debate me, or any others, on the Kalam argument.

Keith's private cancellation of his public debate is, dare I say, highly suspect. He didn't have the balls to make his cancellation a public statement from him to everyone here, even though he publicly accepted your challenge ... especially after all the bullshit he's spewed here about how he'll deal with every last one of us. He should have told us publicly what he told you privately. A person of integrity would have told us all that he wasn't informed enough on the subject to debate you. We would have accepted that as reasonable, and no one here would have criticized him for making that admission. Instead, he left that announcement for you; that's the act of a coward.

I thought that because he serves in the Army that I could respect him for that, even if I think he's a dunce. Now, I can't even do that. I would never counsel someone to join the Army (being an Air Force veteran myself), but at least the Army does try to instill a sense of duty, integrity and honor into its people. Keith must have been on KP duty when they had that lesson. He displays none of those qualities here.

Keith has a provisional understanding of what it even means to debate and, as others have pointed out, he seems to have the idea that the main trick is to learn the key points of someone else's debate as well as their responses to challenges. You don't get HIS ideas, or HIS thinking, because I don't think he's formed much of those on this issue.

I think he understood the above method wouldn't work in our debate, and so thought better of it (although that's NOT what HE said in his PM).